# C_2019004EN.01003401.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/34

---

Action brought on 19 October 2018 — ZK v Commission

(Case T-627/18)

(2019/C 4/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZK (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the confirmatory decision of the selection board of competition EPSO/AD/323/16 of 1 February 2018 not to list the applicant as a successful candidate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the confirmatory decision of the selection board of competition EPSO/AD/323/16 of 1 February 2018 not to list the applicant as a successful candidate;

| — | In so far as necessary, annul the confirmed decision of the competition’s selection board of 12 December 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annul the confirmed decision of the competition’s selection board of 12 December 2017;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 3 of Annex III thereto and, second, infringement of the rules governing the organisation of the competition’s tests. In that regard, the applicant claims in particular that only two members of the selection board were present at her interviews, and not the selection board composed of the president and six members. Furthermore, she points out that the president took part in the proceedings of the selection board only as a mere observer, which also infringes the provisions of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 3 of Annex III thereto and, second, infringement of the rules governing the organisation of the competition’s tests. In that regard, the applicant claims in particular that only two members of the selection board were present at her interviews, and not the selection board composed of the president and six members. Furthermore, she points out that the president took part in the proceedings of the selection board only as a mere observer, which also infringes the provisions of the Staff Regulations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination which vitiate the contested decision in the present case, owing to the lack of stability of the selection board and reliance on back-up assessors who were not given any specific assessor training. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination which vitiate the contested decision in the present case, owing to the lack of stability of the selection board and reliance on back-up assessors who were not given any specific assessor training.

---